DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 11, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claims 1 and 5 have been canceled
Claims 2-4, 6-9 have been amended.
Claim 10 is new.
There is no prior art rejection at this time for claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed June 11, 2026, with respect to claim 6 rejected under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn. However, a new 35 USC 112 rejection will be provided below for claim 10.
Applicant's arguments (regrading 35 USC 101) filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite a “specific technical implementation” involving integration of distinct datasets and display in a predetermined order. The arguments are not persuasive. The claims, as presently amended, remain directed to the abstract idea of collecting information, identifying relevant items based on a query, and displaying selected results in an ordered arrangement. More specifically, the claims recite:
acquiring posted information,
receiving a search query,
specifying a specific product based on the information and query,
specifying related products, and
displaying the information in a predetermined order.
These limitations amount to organizing and presenting information to a user. This is a fundamental mental process and method of organizing human activity, both of which fall within recognized abstract idea groupings.
In addition, Applicant’s characterization of the claims as a “specific technical implementation” is not persuasive because the claims do not recite any particular improvement to computer functionality, such as a new data structure, a new display architecture, or a specific algorithmic mechanism that changes how the computer operates. The recited “predetermined order” is merely a presentation rule for arranging results and does not constitute a technical improvement.
Next, Applicant argues the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the arrangement improves comparison of information sets. However, the specification and claims do not recite a technical improvement to the functioning of the device itself. Rather, the claims use generic processors and memory to perform conventional data acquisition, selection, and display functions. The alleged benefit of helping a user compare and review information more efficiently is a user-interface or information-content advantage, not an improvement to computer technology. Improvements in convenience, organization, or information retrieval relevance do not, by themselves, make an abstract idea patent eligible.
Applicant argues that the claims recite an inventive concept in the ordered combination of elements. However, the recited operations remain generic and conventional:
storing instructions in memory,
executing instructions with a processor,
receiving posted information,
receiving a search query,
specifying products, and
displaying results.
The ordered combination amounts to no more than implementing the abstract idea using routine computer components performing routine tasks. The claims do not recite an additional element, or combination of elements, that is significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Next, Applicant’s reliance on Enfish and McRO is not persuasive. In those cases, the claims recited specific technological improvements to computer functionality or computer-implemented animation processes with particular rules and structures. Here, the claims merely recite selecting and displaying product-related information according to a predetermined order.
Applicant’s citation to Ex parte Desjardins is likewise not persuasive. That decision does not establish a per se rule that claims involving “improvement” language are patent eligible. Eligibility depends on the actual claim language and whether the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem. The present claims do not do so.
Therefore the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained for claims 2-4 and 6-9 and newly added claim 10.
Next, Applicant argues the cited references do not disclose or suggest to "specify one or more related products related to the specific product, wherein the one or more related products are also posted on the SNS; and display, to enable the user to find the desired product, information of the specific product and information of the one or more related products, wherein the information of the specific product and the information of the one or more related products are displayed on a user interface in a predetermined order," as recited by claim 1.
Examiner disagrees. Paragraphs 41 and 43 of Kingston teach the limitations above as highlighted below.
Paragraph 37
In an embodiment, the media content 302 is provided live and the product tags 304 are generated as the media content 302 is aired. Product tags 304 may mark one or more products 306 (i.e. goods or services) that may be purchased. The marked product(s) 306 may include a wide variety of products but the function of product tags 304 are substantially similar regardless of the type of product(s) 306 for sale. In such an embodiment, the media content 302 may be provided to a first service or network configured to determine portions of the media content 302 that may include certain products such as, for example, clothing, electronics, vehicles, and may even include offers for similar subscription content, such as access to view all professional football games, instead of just the professional football games televised on broadcast or cable subscription television, access to fantasy sports services, and so forth. In other words, a product, particularly a service product, may also be provided as a marked product 306. The output of the first service or network may be provided to a second service or network configured to determine a match with the one or more products within the media content 302 with available products 306. In such an embodiment, the second service or network may have access to available products 306 that have opted into the system 100. The second service or network may be configured to match the available products 306 with corresponding similar or identical products within the media content 302. A display of products 306 may be located below the media content, beside the media content, or anywhere else in the display, and may further include detailed or simple information concerning products 306 offered in media content 302.
Paragraph 41
The consumer's view 300 may further include recommended media content 312. The recommended media content 312 may be determined by an algorithm that considers the consumer's demographics, viewing history, preferences, purchase history, and so forth. In an embodiment, the algorithm determining the recommended media content 312 provides a preference for media content 302 that includes product tags 304 over media content that does not include any product tagging. In an embodiment, the recommended media content 312 includes an indication that the video includes product tags 304. In such an embodiment, a user may elect to view recommended media content 312 that includes product tags 304. In an embodiment, the user may receive a monetary or other benefit for indicating a preference for viewing media content 302 that includes product tags 304.
Paragraph 43
The promoter's view 400 may include a search bar 414 for searching a database of suitable products 406 that may be associated with a product tag 404. In an embodiment, a user with access to the promoter's view 400 may search via the search bar 414 to find various products 406 that are similar or identical to an item or product within the media content 402. The user may then create a product tag 404 and associate the one or more products 406 with the product tag 404. The search bar 414 may provide access to products 406 that are stored in one or more of a merchant database 112, a content provider database 108, and/or an integrated marking database 104. The search bar 414 may include various options to filter products 406 such that a user with access to the promoter's view 400 may ensure that the posted available products 406 are in fact similar or identical to items/products viewable within the media content 402.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 10 recites wherein the displaying on the user interface comprises arranging the information of the specific product and the information of the one or more related products on a time axis according to their respective posted dates. Examiner could not find support for time axis in the originally filed specification. Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for time axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2-10 are directed to a device, method and storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong One
Independent claims 2, 8 and 9 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities. Specifically, claim 2 recites:
An information display device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire posted information associated with an introduction of a product
posted on a social networking service (SNS), wherein the posted information
comprises at least an account name and a posted date;
receive a search query input by a user for finding a desired product;
specify, based on the posted information and the search query, a specific
product posted on the SNS;
specify one or more related products related to the specific product,
wherein the one or more related products are also posted on the SNS; and
display, to enable the user to find the desired product, information of the specific product and information of the one or more related products, wherein the information of the specific product and the information of the one or more related products are displayed on a user interface in a predetermined order.
But for the recitation of generic computer components like information display device, memory, storage medium and processor, the italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe a situation where a person requests information about a product seen online. The person is presented with information about the product along with other similar products available online. Accordingly, claim 2 recites an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity.
Thus, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, as do claims 8 and 9 which recite substantially similar subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-7 and 10 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claim 2, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A- Prong 1 analysis. In addition, claims 3-4, 6-7 and 10 recite additional limitations that further describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
Claim 3 recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display the specific product and the one or more related products in a distinguishable manner. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Claim 4 recites the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive selection of at least one of the specific product or the one or more related products; and display information associated with the selected product. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Claim 6 recites the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: after specifying the specific product and displaying the information of the specific product, count a number of times the SNS has been mistaken by the user, wherein the counting is performed in a case where the desired product is not a displayed specific product posted on a displayed posting media specified by a specification information of the user but a displayed candidate product posted on a displayed similar media; and determine that a first media and a second media are mutually similar media when the number of times the first media and the second media have been mistaken greater than a predetermined number. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and mathematical calculations, formulas or relationships)
Claim 7 recites the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire preference information regarding a preference of the user;
specify a recommended product from among products posted on the SNS based on the preference information; and
display the recommended product. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Claim 10 recites wherein the displaying on the user interface comprises arranging the information of the specific product and the information of the one or more related products on a time axis according to their respective posted dates. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract
Step 2A- Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 2, 8 and 9 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements that are cited information display device, memory, storage medium and processor amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, see applicant’s specification pages 5-6 and Figure 2 and see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 3-4, 6-7 and 10 is also not integrated into a practical application under a similar analysis as above. The functions of claims 3-4, 6-7 and 10 are performed with the same additional elements introduced in the independent claims, however, even these additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 2-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements information display device, memory, storage medium and processor amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) as evidenced by Applicants specification pages 5-6 and Figure 2. The computer components above are described at a very high level and generic in nature such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that generic computer components could be used to implement the invention.
Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kingston, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0175578 (see PTO-892, Ref. G) in view of Goldshtein et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,056,739 (see PTO-892, Ref. E).
As per claim 2, Kingston teaches an information display device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see paragraphs 64, 65 and 67):
receive a search query input by a user for finding a desired product (see paragraphs 41 and 43);
specify, based on the posted information and the search query, a specific
product posted on the SNS (see paragraphs 41 and 43);
specify one or more related products related to the specific product, wherein the one or more related products are also posted on the SNS (see paragraphs 37, 41 and 43); and
display, to enable the user to find the desired product, information of the specific product and information of the one or more related products, wherein the information of the specific product and the information of the one or more related products are displayed on a user interface in a predetermined order (see paragraphs 34, 41 and 43 and Figure 3 and 4). Examiner notes that Applicant’s “predetermined order” limitation is understood to be arranging information in a specified order and is a common and well-understood presentation choice. The use of a “predetermined order” is therefore an obvious design choice, particularly in view of references that already disclose presenting multiple content items to a user in an organized interface.
Goldshtein teaches acquire posted information associated with an introduction of a product posted on a social networking service (SNS), wherein the posted information comprises at least an account name and a posted date (see column 29, lines 20-67, column 30, lines 45-60, column 35, lines 1-24 and column 72, lines 15-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kingston and Goldshtein to provide information about a product advertised on mass media because users may want to learn more about products that were advertised as taught by Goldshtein (see column 1, lines 41-46).
As per claim 3, Kingston and Goldshtein teach the device of claim 2. Kingston further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
display the specific product and the one or more related products in a distinguishable manner (see Figures 3-4).
As per claim 4, Kingston and Goldshtein teach the device of claim 2. Kingston further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a selection of at least one of the specific product or the one or more related products; and
display information associated with the selected product (see paragraphs 33, 37 and 40).
As per claim 7, Kingston and Goldshtein teach the device of claim 2. Kingston further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire preference information regarding a preference of a user;
specify a recommended product from among products posted on the SNS based on the preference information; and
display the recommended product (see paragraph 41).
Claims 8 and 9 recites similar limitations to claim 2 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 2 as set forth above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kingston, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0175578 (see PTO-892, Ref. G) in view of Goldshtein et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,056,739 (see PTO-892, Ref. E) and further in view of Wheatley et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150281793 (see PTO-892, Ref. B).
As per claim 10, Kingston and Goldshtein teach the device of claim 2. Wheatley teaches wherein the displaying on the user interface comprises arranging the information of the specific product and the information of the one or more related products on a time axis according to their respective posted dates (see paragraph 94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kingston, Goldshtein and Wheatley to provide information about a products and their posting dates because users may want to learn more about products that were advertised at a certain time as taught by Goldshtein (see column 35, lines 47-67 to column 36, lines 1-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights